"With the new Da Vinci collection, IWC Schaffhausen has returned to the round case that was so successfully established by the Da Vinci Perpetual Calendar in 1985. It means we are bidding farewell to the tonneau case..."
Georges Kern, CEO of IWC Schaffhausen
In my view, the Da Vinci will be ultimately unsuccessful and remain the odd-man out from a branding perspective. Here's why:
I think that IWC's current design DNA can be summarized as representing a distinctively masculine aesthetic that is also aspirational; with a focus on adventure in the air (pilot watches), sea (aquatimer) and land (embodied in the Ingenieur's current racetrack ethos). The Portugieser line offers a successful segue to everyday (well-to-do) life; while the Portofino (particularly the 2011+ 8-day 45mm models) represents the night life (with oversized models far more suited to untucked Robert Graham shirts than formal or black-tie attire).
To be successful, the Da Vinci has to apply that same aspirational ethos to formal luxury. That's where its 'failure' really lies, not in the tonneau case per se. For that segment, most of us already have strong pre-existing associations with brands like Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron & Constantin, A. Lange & Sohne and Breguet. Even Rolex has never had great success in cracking that nut, with the Cellini always seeming to be a footnote to their core business. Of course, IWC is not known for ultra-thin movements, so the applicability of IWC movements to the traditional "formal luxury" segment will always be an uphill battle.
The only real option is to change the game. The success of Franck Muller and, more importantly, Richard Mille prove that the tonneau is not dead from an aspirational perspective. They also prove that the real issue is that the IWC interpretation of the tonneau lacked mass appeal. With the announced pivot towards women and the 1985 aesthetic for men, it seems to me that IWC is giving up on the 'formal' male luxury segment and setting themselves up for greater failure in the Da Vinci line; particularly with their focus on less masculine watches that are mostly based on Sellita movements. That is contrary to the aspirational underpinnings of all its other lines. 'Cheap luxury' has always been a contradiction in terms. It may be ok for a pilot watch but I am very skeptical that the market will embrace a Sellita-based formal luxury watch. In my view, nostalgia for the 1985 Da Vinci perpetual calendar will not be sufficient for success either - if that strategy was sound, the 1985-era Da Vinci would be worth far more in the collectors market than it is today.
It seems to me that the real answer to the Da Vinci problem can be found in IWC's history. Just as IWC hired Gerald Genta to redesign the Ingenieur for the Royal Oak era, I think that IWC should have been looking to Muller and Mille for inspiration. IMHO, that's where success based on aspirational branding consistent with the rest of the IWC design portfolio lies.
What do you think? From an IWC collector's perspective, is there a desire out there to 'save' the tonneau Da Vinci with a serious design update rather than kill it? Is anyone really excited to revisit the 1985-retro design on a sustained basis? A limited edition boutique edition perhaps, but is it really a foundation for a volume-driven line of modern formal watches? I might be completely wrong, but that's how I see it.
Sorry for the long post!
My apologies in advance for an even longer reply than yours. :-)
While I too am sad to see the tonneau case go, I see things a little differently from you.
Before I saw the latest pre-release of Da Vinci, I too was a little skeptical. In the "formal dress-watch" arena, IWC already has the Portuguese and possibly the Portofino series to fill the gap. I too was wondering how a round-case revised Da Vinci could fit into the picture.
After seeing the latest Da Vinci series in person, most of my doubts were cleared. First and foremost, the Da Vinci series were never meant to be the "ultimate high-end dress watch". OK, maybe it is--perhaps I am just misinformed. To me, the Da Vinci series have always been a technologically advanced watch that are also very elegant, not necessarily something too contemporary or shall we say post-modern? So, providing the thinnest watch by the Da Vinci series may not be the most critical aspect to consider. I mean, if "technologically advanced" is not one of the considerations, perhaps IWC could just call it the Michelangelo series instead of Da Vinci, right?
I was worried that with the Portuguese and Pilot already fully utilizing all the most advanced perpetual calendars from IWC (and Ingenieurs and Aquatimers were guilty of that too), what would be left for the Da Vinci? I was pleasantly surprised by the 89360/89361-based chronograph movements with added perpetual calendar (and moonphase) features. I hope this movement will be unique and exclusive to the Da Vinci series for a while. This sets the Da Vinci series apart--and brings back memory from the earlier Kurt Klaus designs.
Furthermore, I was told IWC spent a lot of time to get the rotating lugs right for the the new Da Vinci. None of the current IWC watches offer this. Putting this on Portofino and Portuguese will be somewhat out-of-place. Da Vinci, being the "technologically-advanced dress watch" fits in this category nicely. If you haven't seen the new lugs, all I can say is that I am thorough impressed. I would be tempted to get a new Da Vinci because of it alone.
Yes, I agree with you that putting a Sellita movement in a low-end Da Vinci does not make it too appealling... but we need to understand it is what it is... just having nice Perpetual Calendar with chronograph movements probably won't sell too many IWC's. IWC has got to have some low-end, volume products from the Da Vinci series to make some profit. My only wish is that they could perhaps consider adding a moonphase to the lower-end Da Vinci men-series, and not let that be an option for the ladies alone (after all, IWC is engineered for men, isn't it?).
All in all, I think the new Da Vinci series are full of pleasant surprises. I do love the soon-to-be-gone Tonneau case. I think IWC has done a marvelous job designing and manufacturing them. They are much more complex (and therefore costly) to make then the round case. I sincerely wish that the now-discontinued Tonneau-cased DA Vinci's will become collectors' items, and permanently a part of IWC's greatly-respected history.
If I were to worry about a particular series from IWC, it would be the Portofino rather than the new Da Vinci. The Portofino series just have so much overlapping with the Portuguese. IWC could have done much more to elevate its status. Being the only series with Roman Numerals on their dials, the Portofino could be the ultimate highest end formal dress watch for IWC, instead of the Portuguese. If you said IWC needed some ultra-thin dress watches, I think Portofino should address that market segment rather than the Da Vinci's.
I don't know... perhaps IWC could borrow more Piget or JLC thin movements and use them in the Portofino series?? perhaps that would differentiate it more from the Portuguese?
Just my 2c worth only. Feel free to disagree and add your comments.
We obviously see things differently. I see the current Portofinos (specifically the 8-day hand-wound 45mm iterations) as hip dress watches that can be worn as an alternative to an AP Millenary, not as classical dress watches (primarily because of their size and dial designs). The smaller, simpler models do compete more with traditional dress watches - but I don't see them as truly competing against the Portugiesers (which are more casual than a traditional dress watch).
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that IWC develop an ultra-thin movement or source one from JLC - that really would be contrary to IWC's technical DNA. More importantly, I don't think that IWC is well positioned to win by making high-end dress watches that look like those of the dominant traditional producers of such watches (Patek, Vacheron, AP, JLC, Breguet, etc.). Rather, my suggestion was to look at Muller and Mille for inspiration in order to to create a modern high-end tonneau that would better inspire ownership aspirations. That part of the market is a lot less crowded and a watch of that design would play better to IWC's design and technical DNA in my humble opinion.
I do agree Tonneau-cased watches are somewhat rare. Like I said, I too felt sorry to see these go from IWC's portfolio.
Having said that though, I still think IWC has managed to captured the essence of Da Vinci, and return to its root with the latest Da Vinci design.
I sincerely hope that IWC will do well with it.
I hope they do well with this 'new' approach as well. I'd be very pleased to be wrong.
Interesting topic! IWC having three dress-like lines, Portuguese, Portofino and Da Vinci, is a bit much. Them all being round makes it difficult to make them really distinctive. So, the tonneau shape for the Da Vinci was a good idea. Alas, certainly to me, the tonneau shaped Da Vinci's simply were not beautiful enough, I would even say that they were quite unattractive, looking too massive on the wrist. Of course they were not unattractive to everybody, but apparently to enough people to make these Da Vinci's rather unsuccessful. There are many brands that make tonneau shaped watches that look nicer, to name two: Vacheron Constantin and Cartier. I read here that the tonneau Da Vinci family was meant as a relatively cheap alternative to the Richard Mille watches. Whatever happened, this strategy didn't quite work as wished.
To me, the new round Da Vinci line could be successful, not because of its technical prowess, but because of its looks. Where the Portuguese and Portofino watches look quite subdued, the new Da Vinci's look exuberant, super luxurious, very, very present. They will appeal to the rich people who want to show off, certainly in America and Asia, where showing off is more accepted than in Europe. And they are very beautiful, where the tonneau's were not. To me the top Da Vinci looks favourable when compared to the top Rolex Day-Date.
As for the lady's watches, one never quite knows. I am quite sure it all is about looks, and the signs look good to me: they don't look like men's watches with diamonds and a silk strap, that in my opinion would not fool any lady. And I'm quite sure that the ladies, much more than the men, don't care at all about the movement inside the watch, they might even prefer a quartz movement because they are more practical, and more accurate too. Again, I think IWC did well here, better than in the past.
Kind regards,
Paul
Funny turn around :-)
This was the Design of the early Da Vinci ?!
Ladies, more accurate? Haha. You don't know my wife, mate! :)
(Longer post (taken seriously) to follow, hopefully within a few weeks.
Best,
Robert
Interesting discussion. I also find that the distinction between Portuguese, Portofino and Da Vinci lines could be clearer.
The Portuguese line has an established pedigree and design language. I like it the way it is.
Regarding the Portofino line, I think IWC should have made the caliber 59000 movement family 5mm smaller in diameter. That would have given more freedom in designing a true dressy product line for both males and females. The lower end models could maybe use the new caliber 42000 movements once (hopefully soon) their production ramps up.
As for Da Vinci, I think it should be the avant garde product line with more daring and futuristic design, materials, technology and features. Therefore, I'd prefer Da Vincis to have a case design that is not a classic round one. Ok, having a special lug design is a step in right direction, but I'd prefer IWC to be bolder in this area.
Some kind of tonneau case form might be worth to try again. Granted, the outgoing Da Vincis were not really successful aesthetically, or commercially, but I think the tonneau case still has potential, if executed right.
The way I see it, success recipe for Da Vinci Collection would be the use of exotic metals (for example tantalum) or the combination with precious metals with exotics.
Just as it began; innovative and revolutionary codes of 'Da Vinci' approach and IWC engineering.
In addition to exotic materials (which could help), a modernization of the case and dial would be important too. It could still be thick (like Richard Mille tonneaus), but the design is/was in dire need of an update. The most recent cases and dials looked stuck in the past - too thick to be classic and too stodgy to be modern.
I NEED one of these...
R.I.P
This is hands down my favourite watch.
[
](s375.photobucket.com/user/noiseorchard/media/image_zpshs4kowwr.jpeg.html)
Despite my critical reaction to IWC's overall Da Vinci strategy, I have to say that I really like the new Da Vinci Tourbillon Retrograde Chronograph that IWC unveiled today. It has a hacking flying tourbillon originally developed by A. Lange & Söhne - which is making it's first appearance in an IWC. At 44mm in diameter and 17mm in height, I can't really see it as a formal dress watch; but it's nevertheless a beautifully updated expression of the 1985 Da Vinci design.
That's a beauty. Is that the ceramic version?
